It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by PhoenixOD
A mature person can explore the issues of gun control without having to take a strong stance on any one side. Its a shame you are not such a person.
Originally posted by PhoenixOD
Yet again you try to pull the issue away from guns because you have no real argument. Trying to reduce the deaths guns does not mean someone is ok with deaths by any other means. Those are just your words.
Originally posted by PhoenixOD
The stricter gun laws were not put in place to reduce violent crime , they were put in place to stop regular mass killing by firearms which they have clearly done.
But percentages of homicides along with almost all violent crimes are down that's even with the obvious increase of population since that time.
Who said I was mature?
So, if you are ONLY looking to do away with mass shootings, since Australia had such a HUGE past with this, where it happened what, one or two times, then I guess the Ban has worked to deter that occurrence.
Nope, as you seem focused solely on just reducing firearm related deaths. You failed on several occasions to address the violent crime rate, only to banter back on guns.
But, I could care less about Australia, as it is not my problem, nor my concern.
Originally posted by PhoenixOD
Dont worry i dont think anyone is saying that about you
Originally posted by PhoenixOD
According the what their prime minister said they had almost one mass killing every year..now they have had none for 17 years following the stricter gun control laws. The facts speak for themselves.
Originally posted by PhoenixOD
Well considering that's what the subject of the thread is about ..'guns' and we are discussing 'gun control' in Australia its not surprising is it?
Originally posted by PhoenixOD
I think you mean 'couldnt' but who knows with your twisted logic. Yes its plainly obvious that dealing with facts surrounding progress in mass killings by guns is not something you are concerned about
Your statements are clearly anti-gun rights, and the idea that you are railing just for firearms to be banned, and will not address the real issue, the person, shows just that.
Being Pro-Gun rights, I am against mass killings as a whole, not just with firearms.
But, I know, being in the real world, that there is nothing that will stop a criminal from committing crime.
Originally posted by PhoenixOD
Yay he made the perfect gun for terrorists and criminals where they dont have to go through background checks to get them and it cant be detected by metal detectors. Nice and easy to get into airports. Not to mention can be made by people of any age, smuggled into schools easily.
What an unbelievably stupid thing to do
edit on 6-5-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)
But why even bother making an undetectable gun that is free? I cant see any good coming from designing something like this.
All that you have stated, is that you are against firearms, because it has stopped, so far, mass shootings in a single country.
Originally posted by IShotMyLastMuse
Too many americans have a gun fetish and this proves it.
I was waiting for the printers to become more affordable because i thought it would be very useful around the house for building "extra parts" to stuff, and now thanks to some gun addicted nut jobs, they will either be banned or so expensive i will probably not be able to get one.
the extent that some americans will overcompensate with guns for their own insecurity is just amazing :/
Originally posted by macman
Originally posted by fairguy
Let me guess, you think that complete martial law is an absolute certainty and you're going to take them all on in your Die Hard vest....
Yeah, sure sure. Okay then.
When have I stated any of that?
Originally posted by fairguy
I always wanted to live in 'merica.
Not any more.
Good, stay where you are. I am sure you are SO much safer there.
Originally posted by Slugworth
reply to post by crazyewok
If the printers become available and include restrictions on, not just guns, but all printable objects will you still blame that on American gun laws?
For example, lets say you broke the handle of your car door and want to print a new one, but can't do so because it would infringe upon the intellectual property rights of the car manufacturer. The printer has a built in restriction that requires you to own a license to produce an object. You could purchase the license that allows you to print a limited number of them, and the cost of the license will offset the sale they lost because you printed it instead of ordering it from the manufacturer.
If you think this sounds far-fetched then this whole discussion of printed guns has successfully diverted your attention from the real issue. This is exactly the sort of limitations that the manufacturing industry is planning as we speak.
The manufacturers want this because it will allow them to continue to profit without the need for a factory or, more importantly, employees. If they are currently selling an item for $10 retail and are instead able to sell you the spec for $10 they will increase their profit because the cost of producing, shipping, and shelving the item is gone. That cost is replaced by a tiny bandwidth cost.
Utilizing these printers to their full potential is going to require cracks and modifications, and those cracks and modifications are going to be criminalized. Printing that door handle without paying for the license will be the new piracy.
Guns are not the issue. They are using the idea of printed guns to scare you into believing these printers are themselves dangerous weapons that require regulation, and you are falling hard for it.
In theroy they could complety bring down the capatlism system. All menial job could become obsolete.
Originally posted by Slugworth
reply to post by crazyewok
In theroy they could complety bring down the capatlism system. All menial job could become obsolete.
I struggled with this drawback for a bit myself. If factories were rendered obsolete by this tech it would certainly mean fewer manufacturing jobs. Then I realized that humans are already approaching obsolescence with regard to manufacturing. A single person can run a robotic assembly line that, 50 or 100 years ago, would have required many people. Other sectors of industry that could take a hit it would include the design and maintenance of the robots, and everyone involved in the shipping-retail chain.
The upside: if the printers were to available without restriction, could be a boom in individual inventiveness. The ability for a person of average finance who has a good idea to draw something in CAD and go straight to production could lead to all sorts of new and useful creations, perhaps even life-altering ones. I don't think we should worry about killing obsolete industries just because they employ people. The VCR was supposed to be the death of the film industry. The world adapts.
Before someone points out that something is "impossible" to create with these printers or that they are prohibitively expensive please refer to my earlier post where I address that.
Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by macman
All that you have stated, is that you are against firearms, because it has stopped, so far, mass shootings in a single country.
Again you are making up claims about what i have said and arguing against them, seems to be a recurring problem in comprehension you are having.
Woopty doo eh?
edit on 7-5-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Taggart
AGAIN, I could care less what other countries do. Ban this, outlaw that, restrict something. I don't care. Your house, your rules.
Those moronic laws and rules have no place in the US.
Thanks for playing.